Did PWK Intend For Klipsch Speakers To Be Equalized ?

[ka7niq]

He doesn't work there anymore.

Not that he won't know...

I bet he does!

[colterphoto1]

The Yamaha RX-V1 has the following tone controls (from the spec sheet)

Tone Control Characteristics

BASS:	Boost/Cut...+/-10dB (50Hz) Turnover Frequency...350Hz
TREBLE:	Boost/Cut...+/-10dB (20kHz) Turnover Frequency...3.5 kHz
Center Graphic Equalizer	Frequency...100/300/1k/3k/10kHz Boost/Cut...+/-6dB Q...0.7
Bass Extension	+6dB (60Hz)
Filter Characteristics	SUBWOOFER OUT: LPF...fc=90Hz, 24dB/oct

Cinema Equalizer

High	Frequency...1kHz-12.7kHz Boost/Cut...-9dB to +6dB
PEQ	Frequency...1kHz-12.7kHz Boost/Cut...-9dB to +6dB Q...1.85

CINEMA EQ - Check page 50 of your owner's manual for the use of these controls. Looks like there is a graphic eq to match the tonal balance of the center speaker to the mains, then a couple of PEQ's for user settings. According to these specs, it doesn't appear that you get much control of lower frequencies with this particular model.

I currently use the RXV-2600, which has built in auto-eq system (called YPAO, for what it's worth) that allows several bands (5?) of completely variable PEQ for each individual amplifier channel (total 7).

Having never tested the CW II in-room response I cannot answer that question. I'm no longer with Klipsch so can't speak to the Energy question either. Sorry.

Michael

[DrWho]

Can you provide reference materials that indicate PWK used EQ?

PWK put EQ in his horns and in his passive xovers, and the
EQ's got more advanced over the years. I think it very safe to say that
PWK was a fan of EQ.

Are not his actual
products that have the EQ right there not "reference material" enough?
It's not like businesses are normally in the practice of divulging
their recipes...Klipsch isn't a research institution.

Btw, PWK
isn't a god either...I have the utmost respect for the great man, but
if he ever said anything that contradicts reality, then I would have no
problems ignoring it or disagreeing with him. Granted, PWK was usually
right about most things and demonstrated some great engineering
prowess, but based on the stories I've heard, it sounds like he was
always updating his views and many of his comments were made in context
of the rest of the audio industry at the time of the comment.

All
that to say, there is a mountain of research on the topic of
equalization and I think it a bit insane to limit the topic to PWK's
views on the subject...especially when most of his views are subject to
a lot of speculation and extrapolation, and they were always changing.
Of course we've got guys like
Hunter and Roy who worked many years with the man that we could ask...
However, is PWK's stamp of approval going to change the audible impacts
of EQ?

For
what it's worth, I am very certain that Klipsch is not releasing
speakers that sound bad without EQ...they wouldn't go through
all the pains of building in passive equalization into the horns and
xovers if that were the case. And it is quite clear that these
techniques evolved over the years, which says to me that tonal balance
has become an increasingly more attainable attribute. To say that
throwing away acoustic efficiency for an "unequalized" flat tonal
balance is
to say that EQ nonlinearities have a more negative impact on the sound
than driver related nonlinearities. In all the psychoacoustic research
I've come across, it's pretty obvious that EQ distortions are much
lower on the list
than all the driver related distortions (like Bl, Le, and CMS changing
with excursion,
cone stiffness issues, varying voice coil impedance with temperature,
doppler distortion, etc...). Is 0.001% distortion or 1% distortion
going to have a larger impact on the sound? Maximizing acoustic
efficiency means that you've minimized how hard the driver needs to
work, which in turn lowers its distortion for the same SPL. If that
involves making the speaker frequency response not flat, then one uses
EQ to bring it back to a flat tonal balance....but the EQ doesn't
affect the acoustic efficiency of the system. If you can obtain extra
output at certain frequencies, then EQ'ing it back down to flat just
means the driver doesn't need to work as hard over that range.

Btw, the idea that tonal balance might be a form of distortion
depends on one's definition of distortion. In the engineering world,
tonal balance is not a distortion because it doesn't introduce
any new frequencies...the original signal is fully recoverable in such
a scenario (with the proper filtering or EQ). In the engineering world, distortion is what happens when
new frequencies are created...and once new frequencies are added, its
impossible to recover the original signal with 100% confidence.

[DrWho]

Except that
from a purists perspective, you're chopping your music up into tiny
bits and assembling it again at the other end

Isn't it about time that this superstition was put to rest?

Agreed.
Digital is 100% Analog. The abstraction of digital as discrete levels
at specific time intervals is just a means to aid the design of the
desired processing.

[colterphoto1]

Except that
from a purists perspective, you're chopping your music up into tiny
bits and assembling it again at the other end

Isn't it about time that this superstition was put to rest?

Agreed.
Digital is 100% Analog. The abstraction of digital as discrete levels
at specific time intervals is just a means to aid the design of the
desired processing.

I'm no engineer, but a sine wave is no longer a sine wave when you chop it up into tiny bits, I don't care how many times you sample it, it'll never be truly sinusoidal again. It's just like digital photography- film does not have pixels. There becomes a point at which the human ear cannot hear the difference, that is what I'm speaking about- cheap converters vs the better ones.

If the digital realm is so perfect, why do so many 'audiophiles' insist on listening to vinyl over tube amplification with zero tone controls? (I'm not one of them, I'm just saying- you know me Doc, an iPod through mixing console and lots of processing into pro speakers- that's what I listen to)

[neo33]

Should he be a God? The subject at hand is whether or not PWK favored EQ. IMO, we do not have enough evidence to reach a conclusion. PWK wanted his speakers to have high effieciency and low distortion. If he thought that EQ was necessary or else it will be a disastrous, then he would have included EQ as part of the speakers.

I am not a fan of EQ. I never use EQ.

Btw, PWK
isn't a god either

[Edgar]

I'm no engineer, but a sine wave is no longer a sine wave when you chop it up into tiny bits, I don't care how many times you sample it, it'll never be truly sinusoidal again.

You are not an engineer, yet you are making pronouncements that require an engineer's understanding.

The mathematics contradict your statement.

If the digital realm is so perfect, why do so many 'audiophiles' insist on listening to vinyl over tube amplification with zero tone controls? (I'm not one of them, I'm just saying- you know me Doc, an iPod through mixing console and lots of processing into pro speakers- that's what I listen to)

Well, I am one of them. I like the sound of vinyl, and I like the sound of tubes. But I have found that the implementation of digital just keeps getting better, and has reached the point where it preserves the unique sound of vinyl and other analog sources very well. And it will only improve in the future. So why forsake the advantages of digital for superstition about its alleged disadvantages?

Greg

[colterphoto1]

ok. Hey I'm not religious about any of this. If it sounds like music I generally like it. If the gear improves the sound of my music in my room to my ears I'm ok with it. What anyone else chooses to do is fine with me.

I was just here for the sake of discussion because I thought the original question was interesting and thought I could lend some perspective to the thread.

I'll go away now.

M

[ka7niq]

The Yamaha RX-V1 has the following tone controls (from the spec sheet)

Tone Control Characteristics

BASS:	Boost/Cut...+/-10dB (50Hz) Turnover Frequency...350Hz
TREBLE:	Boost/Cut...+/-10dB (20kHz) Turnover Frequency...3.5 kHz
Center Graphic Equalizer	Frequency...100/300/1k/3k/10kHz Boost/Cut...+/-6dB Q...0.7
Bass Extension	+6dB (60Hz)
Filter Characteristics	SUBWOOFER OUT: LPF...fc=90Hz, 24dB/oct

Cinema Equalizer

High	Frequency...1kHz-12.7kHz Boost/Cut...-9dB to +6dB
PEQ	Frequency...1kHz-12.7kHz Boost/Cut...-9dB to +6dB Q...1.85

CINEMA EQ - Check page 50 of your owner's manual for the use of these controls. Looks like there is a graphic eq to match the tonal balance of the center speaker to the mains, then a couple of PEQ's for user settings. According to these specs, it doesn't appear that you get much control of lower frequencies with this particular model.

I currently use the RXV-2600, which has built in auto-eq system (called YPAO, for what it's worth) that allows several bands (5?) of completely variable PEQ for each individual amplifier channel (total 7).

Having never tested the CW II in-room response I cannot answer that question. I'm no longer with Klipsch so can't speak to the Energy question either. Sorry.

Michael

Thanks Michael!

Yeah, it is not the high freqs of the Cornwall 2's I am having problems with, it is it's performance on speech watching TV and movies.

And some musical instrument tones just dont sound as good as I think it should.

It MAY just be that I am spoiled, with B&W Matrix 801's, and perhaps the Cornwall 2 may never equal it in this area, or even come close ?

I love the efficiency, mid bass kick , and ability to rock w/o strain cornwall 2 gives me, I even like the looks of it ?

Yes, it is big and wide, and fills in the area between my 73 inch mitsubishi DLP and the corner mounted subwoofers real well.

But I find that watching TV and Movies on it to be a big let down, compared to Matrix 801's.

I hope to be able to improve it with some EQ ?

I have all new ERSE Poly Caps in it, and Crites Titanium diapraghms on the tweeters.

Off hand, do you know what bands in a EQ effect male voices the most ?

[twistedcrankcammer]

Ya Know,

I have watched this thread go on and on. I can't believe it is still active. I also can't believe we are still speculating our beliefs instead of asking Roy, which would be a better answer then crystal ball, let alone our own beliefs of what Paul would have said about this.

I also cannot believe that nobody brought up the 600 Electronic Crossovers for the KP-600s as this is a form of equalization that would have had to meet with Pauls approval.

Roger

[Coytee]

You are not an engineer, yet you are making pronouncements that require a bewildered engineer's understanding.

emphasis mine after reading bio.... couldn't help myself. []

(done with smile, no ill intent)

[Coytee]

This might be a silly question by a bewildered dummy but I'll ask anyway.

If Klipsch calls their crossovers "balancing networks" then what exactly are they 'balancing'?

Logic tells me they are balancing the output of the various drivers, relative to each other. If this logic is reasonable then isn't the mere fact of them 'balancing' the output mean they are 'equalizing' them in one way or another since they are in fact, shaping the sound somehow?

(Edgar, free shot for ya, you can hit me back now [])

[Edgar]

Any engineer who doesn't admit that he's bewildered by at least something is not keeping up with technology.

[ka7niq]

Ya Know,

I have watched this thread go on and on. I can't believe it is still active. I also can't believe we are still speculating our beliefs instead of asking Roy, which would be a better answer then crystal ball, let alone our own beliefs of what Paul would have said about this.

I also cannot believe that nobody brought up the 600 Electronic Crossovers for the KP-600s as this is a form of equalization that would have had to meet with Pauls approval.

Roger

Why dont you ask Roy Delgado for us, and end the thread ?

Threads are funny, ones you think will go nowhere sometimes ramble on and on, and ones that realli interest me seem to suddenly end, or wander off into two audiophiles talking about Bush vs Obama.

I am a Ham Radio operator, and sometimes on a ham radio frequency I will find a conversation offensive, like a bunch of red neck hams talking about keeping us in stupid wars,, blindly supporting Israel, voting down healt care for every american, or wasting billions of dollars on bail outs for fat cat wall street types.

In ham radio, we have a saying, if you dont like the conversation on a particular frequency, QSY.

OSY means to simply spin your VFO knob, and change frequency ?

I am sorry if this thread offends you, it was not my intent to offend anyone.

But that is is still going is an indication it is of interest to some others.

Perhaps we will get Lucky, and this thread will attract the attention of Roy Delgado, Jim Hunter, or maybe even Trey Cannon, or other Klipsch people who may have known PWK's thoughts about the use of equalizers for his speakers ?

Until then, it gives us bored old men something to talk about I guess ?

I currently do not have an EQ, except a full blown Tascam Parametric I dont know how to use.

Perhaps I will visit a pawn shop soon, and get a cheap graphic EQ and simply try it ?

[Invidiosulus]

Would PWK like they way my setup sounds?

I need the collective approval of the forum to be secure in my listening enjoyment.

-Josh

[Hifi jim]

Would PWK like they way my setup sounds?

I need the collective approval of the forum to be secure in my listening enjoyment.

Now that IS funny! []

[ka7niq]

Would PWK like they way my setup sounds?

I need the collective approval of the forum to be secure in my listening enjoyment.

-Josh

Yes, you are sooo very "correct" individualsorrowsareus

I "need" the collective support of the Klipsch forum, and that is why B&W Matrix 801's are currently playing, NOT re capped, titanium diapraghm Cornwall 2's, LOL

But then, you were just "Joshing", right []

[Dennie]

It's gettin' good..........

[neo33]

Lets ask Amy, Trey, Roy and Professor Thump in that order.

[ClaudeJ1]

I am told Digital EQ is free of the penaltys you get with analog EQ ?

When I spent a day with PWK in 1985 at the Hope factory initially, then at his home after lunch, he played his symphony recordings for me. I asked him about EQ and how he felt about it. He said that without proper insturments people would mess up the sound and that they were better off trying to put Khorns in a room large enough and that had a proper eigenton ratio, which is where they were developed to sound best.

I personally like the Audyssey EQ built into my Onkyo receiver. It does a great job and you don't need to know anything to use it. It takes into account room acoustics and uses some very sophisticated math to do it's thing. I have tried the "pure audio" setting to take the EQ in and out and I prefer it IN. So I don't agree with the "purity" idea of reproduced sound, since recorded music goes through so much processing before it's put on CD or DVD anyhow.

Audio is just an illusion.........a very good one at that. But all the elements have to come together to make it happen. EQ is just one small part of it, but I think it does a lot of good when done right.

It has been almost 8 years since he passed on, so who can say what he would have said about it. He told me he didn't like CD's at all when they first came out and never followed though about whether he changed his mind or not. I'm sure that if he had lived long enough could have MEASURED the positive impact of Audyssey's in-room response corrective power, he would have had to admit that it worked as intended and improved an already good speaker.

I would go for EQ. I did and I really think it's the best sound I have ever had, and I had Khorns for 30 years with a La Scala center, just like PWK. What I have now is better and it's EQ'd.............see my avatar